The Mayor of London's strategic planning role

The Court of Appeal has refused permission for judicial review of the decision of the Mayor of London not to call in or to direct refusal of planning permission for a major estate regeneration scheme in East London.

With the decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse permission in Kabiry v Mayor of London [2025] EWHC 3013 (Admin), the courts have now refused permission at every stage for a challenge to the Mayor’s decision not to intervene in the planning application process for regeneration of part the Custom House Estate in LB Newham. Permission was refused on the papers by Lang J in April 2024, again at an oral hearing before Swift J in October 2025, and now by the Court of Appeal on 14 January 2026.

The claim for judicial review was directed at the Mayor’s decision under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 to allow Newham as Local Planning Authority to determine the application itself, rather than directing refusal or calling in the application. The challenge focused on compliance with policy H8 of the London Plan 2021 and the Mayor’s Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration, in particular the operation of “right of return” for existing tenants.

The Planning Court – and thereafter the Court of Appeal – held that none of the grounds disclosed an arguable error of law but in doing so set out some important principles about the role of the Mayor and the exercise of his powers to intervene in respect of referrable planning applications in London.

First, the Court confirmed that the Mayor’s role at Stage 2 of the 2008 Order is a strategic one. He is not required, at stage 2, to decide the planning merits of the scheme (which will remain a matter for the local planning authority if the application is to be determined by them) or to undertake a detailed analysis of development plan policy compliance.

Second, when determining whether policy H8 had been complied with and whether the policy obligation to secure a “right to return” was secured, the Mayor could legitimately rely on the fact that that the London Borough Newham as Housing Authority had committed to rehousing tenants on the terms set out in Landlord Offer, which residents had voted in favour of and which gave rise to an obligation on the Council which was enforceable in public law. The Mayor could also consider the various means in which LB Newham could make good on that commitment without reaching a determination of which should be followed. Beyond that, he was not required himself to decide how the right to return should be discharged in respect of individual households.

The decision will be of interest to those consider the scope of the Mayor’s powers at stage 2. It will also be of interest to those involved in the planning processes associated with estate regeneration schemes in London,

Douglas Edwards KC and Michael Rhimes are barristers at Francis Taylor Building. They acted for the Mayor of London, instructed by Esther Thornton of TfL Legal.